Viotti, Vicki, Much achieved in last ConCon, held in 1978, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, October 21, 2018. This was a text box inside a larger “insight analysis” that is listed on this website under the Yes & No menu and Opeds submenu under Other.

Cocke, Sophie, Opportunity to revise state Constitution on horizon, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 2, 2018. A comment from The Hawai`i State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse: “The $56 million figure is highly controversial and put out by a government agency, the Legislative Reference Bureau, controlled by state legislative leaders, who are the arch enemies of calling a convention. The last convention in 1978 cost $2.03 million, or $7,682,476 in inflation adjusted dollars. That’s less than a seventh the projected cost here. A competing set of cost estimates provided by Hawaii’s executive branch in 2008 estimated a maximum cost of $11,114,045 and possibly as little as a fourth of that.”

J.H. Snider Comment (update, October 21): I have come to the conclusion that I was mistaken in my earlier assessment below. I now see that this group discussion was a very valuable exercise in educating the moderators so that they could speak authoritatively and in understandable English about the upcoming referendum to the press and in other popular forums. I was too hung up on the term “citizens’ jury” rather than the benefits of the process itself. I have also listened carefully to the most visible moderator in various public forums and now agree with his own assessment that the NoConCon.org coalition has used his quote out of context.

J.H. Snider Comment (October 12): This was a helpful project, but I have some concerns. The purpose of the jury wasn’t clearly stated. Was it to educate the jurors or the public? If the latter, which is what I infer, we should have been told whether the jury deliberations made a difference in the jurors’ opinions of the convention. If so, we would have had to know juror positions both before and after their deliberations. But the announced results only included juror positions after the deliberations. And if the process was designed to educate the public, why wasn’t the process more transparent so the public could better evaluate it?

The nature of the juror selection wasn’t adequately clarified. At times, I heard that jurors would be selected who had an open mind. But at least one juror, Ann Shaver, has been a longtime outspoken and visceral critic of constitutional conventions.

Was the nature of the jury more a debate or a public discussion? A jury composed of partisans would tend to operate as a debate, whereas a jury composed of undecideds would tend to operate as a discussion.

What was the nature of the experts who spoke to the jury? We have their names and affiliations but not whether they were chosen to represent supporters or opponents or some type of neutral, expert opinion.

What was the nature of the two organizers of this citizens’ jury? Were they chosen to balance each other or was there some other selection principle? Colin Moore, one of the two organizers of the jury, has been cited since September 30, 2018 on the NoConCon.org website in a way that strongly suggests he is a convention opponent. Moore also belongs to the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, a union strongly opposed to calling a convention. In 2008, during Hawaii’s last constitutional convention referendum, UHPA, like HSTA, was an affiliate of the National Education Association, the leading funder of the No Campaign.

Using the phrase “citizens’ jury” implies certain procedures that this deliberative process failed to implement. Perhaps another term, such as “forum,” would have been a more accurate characterization of the process as implemented.

A cloud of secrecy enveloped this project after it was publicly announced on September 5. There may have been good reasons for this secrecy. If so, they should have been clearly and publicly explained at the time this project’s findings were released.

ThinkTech Hawaii Three-Part Series

Overview Comment: A useful overview of Hawaii’s constitutional convention process, issues, politics, and history. Unfortunately, it is marred by minor factual inaccuracies.

1. Hawaii’s Big Choice Part 1: understanding the Con Con Ballot Questions, ThinkTech Hawaii, October 1, 2018.Moderator: Peter AdlerPanelists: Avi Soifer and Rebecca SoonComment: Rebecca Soon made material errors in describing the powers of the legislature over the constitutional convention process. Unfortunately, she is not the first pundit to make such errors in a public forum.

2. Hawaii’s Big Choice Part 2: A Look at Possible Con-Con Proposals, ThinkTech Hawaii, October 1, 2018.Moderator: Peter AdlerPanelists: Colin Moore and Kitty YannoeComment: Colin Moore was on solid ground when he relied on survey and other scientific data when making his political generalizations. But when he relied on anecdotal evidence he veered into the realm of conjecture and spin without alerting audiences to the difference or apparently being aware of it himself.

3. Hawaii’s Big Choice Part 3: Highest Hopes, Worst Fears!, ThinkTech Hawaii, October 1, 2018.Moderator: Peter AdlerPanelists: Brendon Lee and Neal MilnerComment: The conversation wasn’t helpfully moved forward by reliance here and in a previous part on the concept of “The Temper of the Times.” Without a clear definition, this concept is merely a truism, as every political action can be viewed as a reflection of its times. The discussion of the big and dark money issue was glib at best.